Let's Talk Immigration

[Tee Kay]

You say "managed properly". But that is not what Friedman is thinking unless I'm mistaken. Friedman doesn't believe in government interference in human matters. He's talking about doing away with borders because "managing" immigration requires government bureaucracy. So we're not talking about "managing" anything here. We're talking about unfettered migration.

Unfettered migration would have the same effect of evening out income inequalities, just less orderly than most people would like.

But won't there always be illegal immigrants? No matter how much we open the door it won't be wide enough.

There will always be crime, so why bother spending money on a police force, right? Of course not, that's silly. While illegal immigration won't be eliminated, it would be less of a problem, and it will be dominated by sex trafficking and the like, rather than traumatised children fleeing war zones or honest people looking for a job.

How many people do we need to share our good fortune with before it is enough? Do we share until everyone in the world is equal?

The left-internationalist in me says yes. Why should I earn $50,000 and a guy in Tanzania who does the same job (or better) earns perhaps $1,000, or less. This inequality should not be sustained, and the biggest thing propping it up is immigration barriers.

No but if the country were suddenly swarmed by 200 million people from XYZ culture, then XYZ culture can pretty much run things in a democracy. Then maybe all the XYZ people decide that they only want to allow immigration of XYZ people from here forward. You alone don't constitute a voting majority. So you are not a tangible threat to your neighbors.

Assuming all the XYZ people think like a hive mind, which is ridiculous.

 

[Gary Childress]

You realise that cultures aren't actually things, don't you?

Why aren't cultures things? What makes them unthinglike?

 

[Gary Childress]

The left-internationalist in me says yes. Why should I earn $50,000 and a guy in Tanzania who does the same job (or better) earns perhaps $1,000, or less. This inequality should not be sustained, and the biggest thing propping it up is immigration barriers.

Do you really want to lose your $50,000 dollar a year job? If that is the case then why did you take a $50,000 a year job? Why not work at fast food where they don't pay as much? If the borders suddenly came down who knows what your or my fate would be? We might find ourselves in a situation that we wish we had not gotten ourselves into?

Assuming all the XYZ people think like a hive mind, which is ridiculous.

Suppose half a billion people from China suddenly moved to the US. Do you think things would change or stay the same? Do the Chinese have the same ideals of Democracy which Americans have? I wouldn't want to live in China as it stands today. If there is no cultural consciousness shared by certain peoples, then why are cultures so different?

 

[Traitorfish]

If there is no cultural consciousness shared by certain peoples, then why are cultures so different?

Why are you treating "cultural conciousness" as the null hypothesis?

 

[Gary Childress]

Why are you treating "cultural conciousness" as the null hypothesis?

Please explain clearer. You're talking in terms I'm not familiar with.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is it assumed that your "cultural conciousness" explanation of cultural divergence is the default that has to be explicitly contradicted, rather than simply withholding judgement on the matter until a suitable explanation is offered?

 

[Gary Childress]

Why is it assumed that your "cultural conciousness" explanation of cultural divergence is the default that has to be explicitly contradicted, rather than simply withholding judgement on the matter until a suitable explanation is offered?

What exaclty is my "cultural consciousness explanation of cultural divergence"? I thought it was just to say that different peoples obviously have different ideas about the world depending upon where they're from. I assume a lot of those ideas are the product of learning from being brough up in their culture. Or is that not true?

 

[BasketCase]

"Well, sharing it with more people would lessen the number of illegal immigrants." you say, perhaps. But won't there always be illegal immigrants?

Surprisingly, GC, the answer in the United States is currently changing to "no". In recent years, the problem of illegal immigration has started to solve itself; more illegals are leaving the U.S. than entering. Why? Very simply: because illegals can't find jobs.

Whether illegals have a right to be here, and whether we should accept them, are frankly irrelevant. Unless the economy improves significantly, illegal immigrants will be forced out due to plain old simple economic necessity.

 

[Gary Childress]

Surprisingly, GC, the answer in the United States is currently changing to "no". In recent years, the problem of illegal immigration has started to solve itself; more illegals are leaving the U.S. than entering. Why? Very simply: because illegals can't find jobs.

Whether illegals have a right to be here, and whether we should accept them, are frankly irrelevant. Unless the economy improves significantly, illegal immigrants will be forced out due to plain old simple economic necessity.

In that case it seems to make a very great difference whether or not we should "accept" them, don't you think? Because if we pass laws that are more accepting of them that means giving them more legitimacy. Giving them more legitimacy means more jobs will hire them instead of higher pay Americans. So then you have the flow once again coming in because we are giving them immunity or the right to Federal Student Aid or whatever. So I see the issue of acceptance as a very important one, tied to the availability of jobs. No?

 

[BasketCase]

In that case it seems to make a very great difference whether or not we should "accept" them, don't you think? Because if we pass laws that are more accepting of them that means giving them more legitimacy. Giving them more legitimacy means more jobs will hire them instead of higher pay Americans.

Got any evidence, or is that merely hypothetical?

Unemployment is up all around; the problem has nothing to do with "legitimacy". LEGAL immigrants (and native American citizens, for that matter) are also having a very rough time finding jobs these days. When legitimate and illegitimate workers have the same problem, it's obvious legitimacy (or the lack thereof) can't be the cause of the problem.

 

[Chiteng]

Got any evidence, or is that merely hypothetical?

Unemployment is up all around; the problem has nothing to do with "legitimacy". LEGAL immigrants (and native American citizens, for that matter) are also having a very rough time finding jobs these days. When legitimate and illegitimate workers have the same problem, it's obvious legitimacy (or the lack thereof) can't be the cause of the problem.

However reducing the number of potential workers DOES benefit the remaining workers

 

[Gary Childress]

Got any evidence, or is that merely hypothetical?

Speak for your own speculations.

I would think, and this is certainly speculation, that the reason many illegals are not getting jobs is because it's heating up against them. More employers are leary of touching them due to public outcry. Less public outcry = more hiring of illegals. Surely not as many employers these days want to be labeled as harborers of illegal workers. That would stigmatize them more. No?

EDIT: And yes there are fewer jobs out there. But the more the public outcry the less of those jobs that are out there are likely to go to illegals. Speculation of course.

 

[Chiteng]

Speak for your own speculations.

I would think, and this is certainly speculation, that the reason many illegals are not getting jobs is because it's heating up against them. More employers are leary of touching them due to public outcry. Less public outcry = more hiring of illegals. Surely not as many employers these days want to be labeled as harborers of illegal workers. That would stigmatize them more. No?

EDIT: And yes there are fewer jobs out there. But the more the public outcry the less of those jobs that are out there are likely to go to illegals. Speculation of course.

agreed

 

[BasketCase]

Speak for your own speculations.

Nothing I wrote last post was speculation. All of it is proven fact.

Fact: most illegal immigrants come here illegally for one reason: money. Fact: the economy has crashed, and EVERYBODY is having a hard time finding a job. Result: fewer illegals coming in, and more moving elsewhere in search of money.

 

[Chiteng]

Nothing I wrote last post was speculation. All of it is proven fact.

Fact: most illegal immigrants come here illegally for one reason: money. Fact: the economy has crashed, and EVERYBODY is having a hard time finding a job. Result: fewer illegals coming in, and more moving elsewhere in search of money.

for now

 

[Gary Childress]

Nothing I wrote last post was speculation. All of it is proven fact.

Fact: most illegal immigrants come here illegally for one reason: money.

Funny. I thought they were here because someone didn't monitor the border close enough when they came across.

 

[BasketCase]

<Sheldon voice> That logic is post hoc ergo promptor hoc.

Side note for Chiteng: current economic conditions are not a "for now" thing. Current economic conditions haven't changed in around six years, and will not change back (ever) until government gets out of the way of business. Business will only hire when there's profit. Not before. Till then? The illegals will keep exiting the country, and lots of Republicans will be fine with that.

 

[Tee Kay]

Do you really want to lose your $50,000 dollar a year job? If that is the case then why did you take a $50,000 a year job?

I wouldn't need a $50,000 job if I can live on less than that; that is, if goods and services are less expensive.

Suppose half a billion people from China suddenly moved to the US. Do you think things would change or stay the same? Do the Chinese have the same ideals of Democracy which Americans have?

Even given the unrealistic scenario (migration is not a decision one takes lightly), those Chinese will still be sharing the country with other Asians, Europeans, Africans and Latin Americans.

If there is no cultural consciousness shared by certain peoples, then why are cultures so different?

Political borders is part of the reason.

 

[Bootstoots]

This only makes sense to you because it is based on a caricature, not an actual position any significant group of American's hold.

Right wingers and Republicans are not against immigration. In fact they think it is a healthy and normal thing for the government to allow. There is no call for the hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants that the government grants citizenship to every year to be restricted or reduced. In reality, many want these efforts and numbers increased, because there are obviously plenty of ineligible non citizens who would be a boon to our nation who can not get in legally. They also champion the nation state system and the sovereign right of a nation to collectively decide who and how many people are allowed to immigrate. Maintaining those powers as a government or supporting them as a citizen is not xenophobia or racism or "anti-immigration" in any way, shape or form.

What they are against is ILLEGAL immigration, which is a no brainer and can only be argued against if you are like Traitorfish and dream of an alternate reality irrelevant to anything, or you are a partisan lefty who artificially dissolves very real distinction between legal and illegal immigration and ignores any support for the former in an attempt to shoehorn accusations of xenophobia/racism/isolationism/buzz word of the week. Or in other words, do what you were doing.

Behold the xenophobia of the US!!! Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status:

2007: 1,052,415
2008: 1,107,126
2009: 1,130,818
2010: 1,042,625

Yeah, we really aren't into this whole immigration thing here in America...

I don't mean to call all Republicans "anti-immigrant" or "xenophobes" - for instance, both of the Bushes and Reagan were the very opposite of that. But I have noticed a marked shift away from liberal immigration policy among the Republican party in the last 8 years or so, and I suspect that they are doing this in response to a recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. When I use words like "anti-immigrant" or "xenophobic", I'm referring to the people whose votes they appear to be trying to win, not so much Republican politicians themselves.

It would be great if our immigration policy were streamlined, with a guest worker program to allow in people who wish to work in the US, conditional upon passing a background check, filling out appropriate documentation, etc. Permanent resident status could be provided to people who worked in the US for a few years without incident, followed by citizenship a few years after that.

In short, I support a fairly unrestricted immigration policy. People who still manage to run afoul of basic documentation rules should be punished - but the only reasons to ignore immigration law would be to evade taxes or hide a criminal record.

As I understand it, American immigration policy has not functioned in this manner. Instead, it seems that very few visas for unskilled laborers were granted in spite of the fact that such laborers were in high demand. Simultaneously, existing immigration laws were not really enforced, largely because they made no economic sense in the first place.

For some reason, it appears that a significant backlash against immigrants, in particular low-skilled Hispanics, developed throughout the 2000s. As a result, opposition to "illegal immigration" grew dramatically. I am not convinced that the majority of opponents of illegal immigration are actually opposed to the illegality of showing up without the proper paperwork. If they were, they would support some sort of guest worker program in order to actually document everyone properly. But most who express concern about illegal immigration also oppose guest worker programs, despite their obvious economic utility. I cannot make any sense of this.

So I do suspect that anti-immigrant sentiment is behind the sudden appearance, c. 2006, of illegal immigration as a hot-button issue. The passage of draconian laws in places like Arizona and Alabama does not make me think any more favorably about this.

Of course there are good reasons to want immigrants to have appropriate documentation, and I don't think people who insist on proper documents oppose immigration in general. The way to ensure that the immigrants are documented is to allow all people passing certain minimum requirements to be documented immigrants.

 

[Chiteng]

I don't mean to call all Republicans "anti-immigrant" or "xenophobes" - for instance, both of the Bushes and Reagan were the very opposite of that. But I have noticed a marked shift away from liberal immigration policy among the Republican party in the last 8 years or so, and I suspect that they are doing this in response to a recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. When I use words like "anti-immigrant" or "xenophobic", I'm referring to the people whose votes they appear to be trying to win, not so much Republican politicians themselves.

It would be great if our immigration policy were streamlined, with a guest worker program to allow in people who wish to work in the US, conditional upon passing a background check, filling out appropriate documentation, etc. Permanent resident status could be provided to people who worked in the US for a few years without incident, followed by citizenship a few years after that.

In short, I support a fairly unrestricted immigration policy. People who still manage to run afoul of basic documentation rules should be punished - but the only reasons to ignore immigration law would be to evade taxes or hide a criminal record.

As I understand it, American immigration policy has not functioned in this manner. Instead, it seems that very few visas for unskilled laborers were granted in spite of the fact that such laborers were in high demand. Simultaneously, existing immigration laws were not really enforced, largely because they made no economic sense in the first place.

For some reason, it appears that a significant backlash against immigrants, in particular low-skilled Hispanics, developed throughout the 2000s. As a result, opposition to "illegal immigration" grew dramatically. I am not convinced that the majority of opponents of illegal immigration are actually opposed to the illegality of showing up without the proper paperwork. If they were, they would support some sort of guest worker program in order to actually document everyone properly. But most who express concern about illegal immigration also oppose guest worker programs, despite their obvious economic utility. I cannot make any sense of this.

So I do suspect that anti-immigrant sentiment is behind the sudden appearance, c. 2006, of illegal immigration as a hot-button issue. The passage of draconian laws in places like Arizona and Alabama does not make me think any more favorably about this.

Of course there are good reasons to want immigrants to have appropriate documentation, and I don't think people who insist on proper documents oppose immigration in general. The way to ensure that the immigrants are documented is to allow all people passing certain minimum requirements to be documented immigrants.

There are very good reasons to support a ZERO immigration illegal or legal.
I support ZPG Zero Population growth. The USA already has too many people inside its borders. We dont need more. My politics have not changed since 1970.

Immigration defeats the initiative